Tenders – Inspector General of Police, Kashmir Zone invited online tenders from reputed transporters, registered firms/associations for the supply of various types of commercial vehicles (without fuel) for the carriage of troops and equipment for the Financial Year 2020-2021 – Four parties submitted their bids – The Tender Opening Committee found that respondent no. 1 did not meet the qualifying requirements of the technical bid – The appellant fulfilling the requirements and being the lowest bidder, was allotted the contract for the supply of commercial vehicles – Writ petition by respondent no. 1 – The Single Judge of the High Court found that the appellant fulfilled the eligibility condition of holding a valid service licence; 31 vehicles were owned by the appellant, another eligibility condition was satisfied – Insofar, eligibility criteria of having work experience was concerned, the Single Judge of the High Court held that since the tendering authority was the best judge as to whether such eligibility condition had in fact been satisfied, a judicial hands-off was mandated – Thus, all the three contentions of respondent no. 1 raised against the appellant were rejected by the Single Judge of the High Court – However, the Division Bench of the High Court held that the respondent no. 1 having satisfied condition no. 31 of N.I.T was wrongly disqualified by the tendering authority – The Division Bench of the High Court held that the expression ‘HMV/ LMV’ meant that there was an option of furnishing the particulars of either HMVs or LMVs or both types of vehicles and the respondent no. 1 had submitted bid accordingly – The action of the officials in rejecting the bid of respondent no. 1 on the ground of non-furnishing of list of both types of vehicles is irrational, arbitrary and perverse – On appeal, held: A cursory glance at Condition No. 31 of N.I.T would show that the 30 vehicles referred to, are ‘both HMV/LMV’ – The tendering authority has construed this condition to mean that both types of vehicles, i.e. HMV and LMV, need to be included in the list of 30 vehicles submitted by each bidder – In a series of judgments, the Supreme Court has held that authority that authors the tender document is the best person to understand and appreciate its requirements, and thus, its interpretation should not be second-guessed by a Court in judicial review proceedings – In accordance with the settled law and noting the interpretation of the tendering authority, it cannot be said that the interpretation done by the authority was a perverse one – The Division Bench of the High Court ought not to have interfered with it by giving its own interpretation and not giving proper credence to the word ‘both’ appearing in Condition No. 31 of the N.I.T – Therefore, the Division Bench decision is set aside and the Single Judge’s judgment is restored.
Disposing of the appeal, the Court
HELD:1. A cursory glance at Condition No. 31 of the N.I.T. would show that the 30 vehicles referred to, are “both HMV/LMV”. The tendering authority has construed this condition to mean that both types of vehicles, i.e., HMV and LMV, need to be included in the list of the 30 vehicles submitted by each bidder. [Para 13][1098-E-F]
2. In a series of judgments, this Court has held that the authority that authors the tender document is the best person to understand and appreciate its requirements, and thus, its interpretation should not be second-guessed by a court in judicial review proceedings. [Para 14][10968-F-G]
3. In accordance with these Supreme Court judgments and noting that the interpretation of the tendering authority in this case cannot be said to be a perverse one, the Division Bench ought not to have interfered with it by giving its own interpretation and not giving proper credence to the word “both’” appearing in Condition No. 31 of the N.I.T. For this reason, the Division Bench’s conclusion that respondent no.1 was wrongly declared to be ineligible, is set aside. [Para 17][1100-D-F]
4. Insofar as Condition No. 27 of the N.I.T. prescribing work experience of at least 5 years of not less than the value of Rs. 2 crores is concerned, suffice it to say that the expert body, being the Tender Opening Committee, consisting of four members, clearly found that this eligibility condition had been satisfied by the Appellant. Without therefore going into the assessment of the documents that have been supplied to this Court, it is well settled that unless arbitrariness or mala fide on the part of the tendering authority is alleged, the expert evaluation of a particular tender, particularly when it comes to technical evaluation, is not to be second-guessed by a writ court. [Para 18][1100-F-G]
5. This being the case, this Court is unable to fathom how the Division Bench, on its own appraisal, arrived at the conclusion that the Appellant held work experience of only 1 year, substituting the appraisal of the expert four-member Tender Opening Committee with its own. [Para 20][1103-B-C]
Afcons Infrastructure Ltd. v. Nagpur Metro Rail Corporation Ltd., (2016) 16 SCC 818 : [2016] 3 SCR 551; Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. v. AMR Dev Prabha (2020) SCC OnLine SC 335; Silppi Constructions Contractors v. Union of India, (2019) SCC OnLine SC 1133; Jagdish Mandal v. State of Orissa (2007) 14 SCC 517; Montecarlo Ltd. v. NTPC Ltd., (2016) 15 SCC 272 : [2016] 8 SCR 224 – relied on.
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.